All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
As you may or may not have seen, the selection for this Script Club is Armored. This script was chosen because it is a produced script written by an unknown and it got attention. We're going to take a week to read it, and then discuss it for another week (or until the discussion dies down.
What we're mainly looking at with this is not so much a review about the script, but more digging into why it sold at all. Personally, a heist story is nothing new, so there must have been something about this script that was special. We want to figure that out along with the usual banter over its general worthiness to grace our presence.
The script is not online so just PM me with your email and I'll send it to you.
This thread will self-destruct in... I mean, this thread will be locked until probably February 8th. As far as I know there won't be an OWC during the time frame we're doing this...though I could be wrong.
Through a combination of demand, necessity, and lack of opposition, I'm opening the script club for the opinions to drop and the discussion to begin. In the past, we've tried to restrict the daily discussion to specific elements, but that has caused some people to fizzle out and thoughts to be lost to the nether regions of their minds, never to be shared. We're going to try just a wide open "go" and try to figure out why this thing was cool enough to sell.
Great script, I enjoyed it a lot. After Rocky, it was probably the most enjoyable Pro script I've read. (Most enjoyable, not necessarily the best...) It flowed easily and clearly and was an exeptionally fast read.
It's kind of a text book script, holding all the elements that the screenwriting gururs have emphasised through the years.
It has a clear protagonist, clear antagonists, a ticking clock that helps to build tension and a clear theme.
It's a simple story, well told.
It sets the scene very early, telling us all we need to know about Ty, he's broke, works different jobs, is under pressure at home with his younger brother who is going off the rails and wants to get married and sort out a better life for all his loved ones. Then we jump straight into the story and it stays in gear all the way through.
This is a story that I would have enjoyed directing myself and would definitley have been interested in if I had the opportunity.
The negatives of such a script are kind of intrinsic in this traditional approach. It's fairly obvious what the overall story arc is going to be. That's not something that is a problem for me in genre films. I don't think anyone doubted John Maclane would overcome his adversaries in Die Hard. The fun is in how it happens, not in whether or not it will happen.
The only thing that didn't work was the idea that these trucks wouldn't have GPS. That was a stretch and something that could surely have been avoided with a little thought.
I can easily see why there was a battle for it between numerous bidders.
1. Strong marketable genre: The Heist movie 2. Well written with a strong, positive ending 3. Easy to make. Just a few people, a warehouse and two trucks.
This is a film that a company based in LA could have made almost overnight in truth. There is almost no reason not to make it. Everything they need is right at their finger tips.
The film is very low risk, and would have seen a decent return on its investment had it been faithfully translated to the screen, I'm certain of that. I'll go into the film version and its mistakes at a later time.
I thought this was a really good script. I'd never heard of it or the film so went into completely innocent(?) It seemd like we'd seen it all before but the writer gave it something that pushed it above cliche. i was amazed that two-thrids of the story take place in the abandoned factoy. But there's never a sense of boredom, as too much is going on. a very quick read. A couple of gripes - i thought it unlikely the crew would confide in Ty so quickly. He could've been a police plant for all they knew, like an air marshall or something. And it seemed almost incredulous(to me anyway) that these guys all of a sudden were gonna risk everything to steal the money. I assume they had families and stuff. Maybe if the writer had shown how desperate some of them were. Perhaps one had been sacked and wanted revenge. It just seemd unlikely how sort of...easy the robbery was(until things went up Shit creek) Dec mentioned the film was vastly different and basically they fucked up a neat little script. That's disappointing, as it reads well and filmable as is. I checked out the film on IMDB - some well known actors in it. Surely they could've shown the director how it would be better. Perhaps Hollywood was the problem. I can imagine this script being a good film in the hands of UK actors, even Aussies. Even a US cast of unknowns would've done better. I picture this as a grainy almost doco type story. The scenes of Ty barricaded in the arnoured van would be great filmed with a handheld, showing the panic and that. nd I know fuck all about film making. Anway, good script. I liked it.
I think it’s good. It’s well written, although it has a few errors in it. Nothing that really disrupts the read. It moves along nicely. It’s essentially a low budget claustrophobic Die-Hard.
I never really felt all that connected to the main character. Or to any of the other characters for that matter. I guess that’s okay for an action flick.
There were also some very unrealistic circumstances, even for an action flick.
According to IMDbPro, the budget was $25M and the worldwide gross was $16.6M. I don’t know how much its accidental Playstation Network release by Sony hurt its box office business, if at all.
So what were they looking for when they bought it? I think Rick probably hit on it. It’s a low budget action picture so linear and simple a child could follow it. According to an interview with the writer, he had reps to help facilitate the sale. He had placed in the Nicholl Fellowship in the past. I don’t know if that’s how he came in contact with his reps but it seems likely.
I haven’t seen the movie. And the script, while good, doesn’t excite me about seeing the movie. If I ever do see it, it’s the type of fodder I’ll forget. I can take it or leave it but I can certainly understand why someone would buy it. Seems like easy money when you read it.
Sorry guys, I haven't read it yet, but I will ASAP.
Glad Bre brought up what I wrote personally to George...this is not a low budget movie, in any way. They spent $25 Mil, and as far as I know, it's release was delayed quite a bit, for some reason. I'm very curious to know how much this "unknown" writer made off of a $25 Mil budgeted flick. If anyone knows, please post it.
Sorry, I'll read and comment on the actual script tomorrow or Thursday at the latest.
I haven't had time to read this yet but I can see why it was the subject for a bidding war. The "unknown" writer had an agent AND a manager before he started shopping this around. An advantage few, if any, have on this site. I'm guessing that was half the battle for him.
Haven't seen the film. Read the script many months ago and liked it.
The story is quite simple but engaging and okay for an action/thriller.
The highlight of this piece is how seamless it is. It flows really well, really fast, reads like a movie.
The story's simplicity can be deceiving; easy reading is damn hard writing as the saying goes.
The contained thriller is always an attractive genre to buyers. Keeping the action in one or few locations helps keep the budget in check.
A box office disappointment for sure. This issue was discussed in detail at the twoadverbs forums since the writer is a regular there.
The writer thinks the marketing department dropped the ball on the film. Surely, he's biased, but makes some interesting points nonetheless. Here are some excerpts:
Quoted Text
Historically, the weekend after Black Friday is a terrible weekend with overall box office drops of 60% from the previous weekend being the norm.
The marketing was, IMHO, one mistake after another and our tracking numbers showed the awareness and interest was generally soft due to the lackluster marketing.
Also, there was a LOT of stuff that was shot only to be cut from the film that I think hurt it and damaged its positive word of mouth potential
For example, more than half our advertising budget was spent on campaigns for BET and small black colleges. I can only imagine how much more effective it would have been to advertised to a broader younger audience.
I can only imagine what our box office numbers would have been if we had opened on another weekend that was not 60% depressed and not competing for attention against movies with a bigger P&A behind them like Twilight, Blind Side, Brothers, Up in the Air and Avatar.
Another huge letdown was the limited appearances and interviews of the cast and Director to promote the film. They appeared in a few markets a week before the film's release. That was not enough time to build a buzz and generate interest. Plus, the film's star is Columbus Short and he only appeared on a few late night shows on BET to promote the film.
We should have been advertising during Heroes and CSI to reach fans of the actors in our movie. We should have had a larger presence on iTtunes and fan sites such as Ain't it Cool. There should have been behind the scenes featuretes at popular music and movie sites rather than being limited to only BET.
I think he's fair in what he says, although I am surprised that the situation should arise. You may criticise the quality of the Hollywood output from time to time, but you'd never think they were slouches when it came to marketing.
As far as the UK goes there was zero publicity. The only thing I saw on it was the little poster on the wall in the cinema and that was poor in itself. Just some guys stood there.
In a way the poster seemed unintentionally funny. It's called Armoured and there was just a bunch of normal looking people stood there. It didn't sell it at all. A fearsome looking black armoured truck bursting out at us or something might have been more effective.
They would have been better making the movie for half the price and spending the $10M on better marketing.
However it seems like one of those that they just wanted to wipe their hands of, a bit like Rogue. Someone must have decided it didn't have the legs and just let it die.
The biggest mistake the film made though was that it changed the emphasis on the characters completely. COMPLETELY.
Cochrane becomes Ty's Godfather of all things (they look the same age). He's known him since he was a baby and was best friends with his father. He is also given a line "there's no bad guys here" that he keeps repeating. All of the cut and dried bad guys become completely inconsistent. He goes from a long time father figure to an outright homicidal maniac.
In the script TY is just set up as a stooge, which although still somewhat of a stretch, works well enough, in the film he is suddenly a life long friend of the guy who wants him dead. There were multiple things like this that made no sense and completely undid all the scripts logic.
The film dwells over Ty's past as an Iraq war veteran (where did that come from?) and adds new scenes about Jimmy (that are exceptionally boring) to do with the visit of social services...
In essence the Director tried to turn it into a noiry, shades of grey type film. The script was black and white, the everyday broke guy caught up in the bad guys scheme.
Once you've all seen the film you'll see what I mean. I could go on for hours about the stuff they've incorporated....
They bought a solid, fast paced action flick and seem to have tried to turn it into a character driven drama...at which point judging from what the writer has said (how they cut a lot of the stuff they shot), the studio probably demanded they cut it to make it faster moving like the film they bought.
It's really a mess, it tried to be something entirely different to what it is.
I thought this one was good. Not great, but definitely good. I think Decadence hit on all points.
It was a nice little action thriller, but I was never really in love with Ty. Someone compared it to a claustrophobic Die Hard. I disagree. Die Hard was loads better than this one. I'm not talking about the film, but the script.
This script reminded me of Panic Room.
I had a few issues too, with some of the plotholes. Like where were the GPSs? And when Ty was trapped inside and the cops were outside, why didn't he just toot the horn? That still works doesn't it?
I did like the twist that came though, when Ty learns that he will be killed. Very good way of throwing the protag into a "new upside down world".
From what you say Dec, it sounds like they screwed it up by trying to ADD character development. I bet that doesn't happen often!
And I would bet you're right.
It's very interesting reading the scripts as well as watching the film. You can get such totally different experiences. I was all ready to tear the script apart once I'd seen the film, then totally changed my mind when I read it.
Really a shame and I bet it must be frustrating for the writer in particular.
It makes you wonder how many films are out there that could have been great in different hands.
I liked the script but haven’t seen the movie. I’ll probably view the DVD as advertised on Netflix:
Armored truck guards Mike (Matt Dillon), Baines (Laurence Fishburne) and Quinn (Jean Reno) turn against one another after their plan to steal $10 million from their own company goes seriously haywire. A witness throws a wrench into their seemingly flawless strategy, so each man scrambles to save his own skin -- whatever the cost to the other conspirators. Nimród Antal directs and Columbus Short co-stars.
That’s a different spin on the script as other reviewers noted.
PACING -- It was definitely a fast read due to the extensive use of one line action sentences.
DIALOGUE – No one went on a tirade or a monologue. Dialogue read well if a bit simple.
CHARACTERS – Quickly drawn but nicely done. I barely felt concern for Jimmy when he is used as leverage on Ty. Perhaps, one more scene with Jimmy would have sold me on his genuine value to Ty. I read above that the movie attempted to do this. Good call even if it didn’t work out on the screen.
I liked Baines as a normally an unnoticeable guy who was actually a nasty man with the will to do the deed whatever it took and can see why Fishburne went for it: Easy money based on his past characters.
Did anyone notice these guys had names that would fit well in a Western: Hackett, Cochrane, Baines, and Dobbs? Heck, damn macho names for any film.
ACTION – Kept on stepping it up. [insert Toyota joke about stuck accelerator here]
STORY – Ty was too easily played into being a member of the team. I thought the letter was a bluff at first. These guys got paid on $10 per hour? Talk about temptation! I wonder how many full cans of kerosene are left around sites like this? I liked how Ty ended up using every resource he had (MacGyver never dies!) even the money. I could feel Cochrane and Baines getting pissed off beyond reason.
I couldn’t help think this script was reverse engineered from the contents of an ACT. Cool.
DESCRIPTION – I didn’t like these phrases (mostly in the first pages):
-- He takes life too seriously to enjoy it.
-- This part of town is a world away from the ghetto where he works.
-- It's not the most expensive but it is the most beautiful.
-- The crushing weight of another shitty day melts away when she sees Ty standing outside.
-- Ty is struck by how beautiful she is.
I wasn’t sure if this was brilliant -- giving the actor his emotional setting -- or it was telling instead of showing. It reads well to me but felt like shorthand.
Overall, I liked the author’s storytelling and it was perfect for his story. It’s truly a blueprint for a movie.
I thought this one was good. Not great, but definitely good. I think Decadence hit on all points.
It was a nice little action thriller, but I was never really in love with Ty. Someone compared it to a claustrophobic Die Hard. I disagree. Die Hard was loads better than this one. I'm not talking about the film, but the script.
This script reminded me of Panic Room.
I had a few issues too, with some of the plotholes. Like where were the GPSs? And when Ty was trapped inside and the cops were outside, why didn't he just toot the horn? That still works doesn't it?
I did like the twist that came though, when Ty learns that he will be killed. Very good way of throwing the protag into a "new upside down world".
Is that it then? Is the script club finished?
I agree with you regards Ty, he's OK, nothing special. Personally I think he's about as developed as he needed to be for the action that took place. One of the things I liked about this was the way it got the information necessary across quickly and then, literally, cut to the chase.
It could have been better and had more layers, but I think it worked for what it was.
I liked the way he protected the cop. It was obvious but for some reason I felt like I cared for the cop. The preceding scene was powerful as well, with the execution of the partner.
That worked because it underlined just how far they were now prepared to go.
They took that part out of the film funnily enough....there's only the one Cop, the guy who gets injured. So they break with Police protocol (no partner) and remove a really intense action beat. How weird is that?
The GPS thing was a real deal breaker for me. It really stuck out. It's even more laughable in the film when they've expanded the $10M to a whopping $42M, just because...introducing another plot hole because they could have still got away with $21M. In the script it makes some sense that they would stick around for the extra 5 as they've risked everything for the money and less than a million each isn't worth it. When we're dealing with figures like that...they should have just grabbed it and ran. A company that moves $10-42M about as a matter of routine and they don't have GPS in 2009? Yeah right.
Part of the fun of your ususal heist film is the complexity of the plan, figuring out just how they are going to pull it off. That was missing from this script, though I can't see it made an enormous difference. He definitley vould have been a bit sharper with the GPS though.
That's a personal bug bear of mine; when the writer mentions something in a script to try and hide the plot hole. It emphasises it even more because it shows they know it's there and are just too lazy to sort it out.
Another thing this film is missing: None of the characters had really good lines. The dialogue was solid but uncharismatic. I know they are just ordinary guys, but still, I wanted a little more bite and wit at times.
That being said, I think from a writing point of view there is a lot to learn from the script.
There are a few genres that if you can find some kind of novel twist to, you've got a shot. The old cops and robbers one is a great example of that.
The blacklist always tends to have a high number of police drama type scripts and there is something about the human psyche that is deeply attracted to the outlaw characters, the people who live life on the edge and don't follow the rules. That's a vein that runs right through fiction and is particularly prevalent in film. Young men in particular really seem to "get" that kind of thing, it touches on that Aplha male thing, where people want to rule over everyone and get to do exactly what they want, instead of having to conform.
The action film as well is such a staple diet of cinema, but good ones don't come by all that often. The Bournes were really good, serious spy ones, after that...not many come to mind recently. Taken had some good energy....
Really we're still using Die Hard as the barometer of that fun, over the top, kind of action film. Lethal Weapon as well maybe...
The door is definitely still open there for someone with an idea...
Something that the writer did expertly I think, building up the tension continually. We had the ticking clock of the time running out for the bad guys, so the antagonists gradually got more and more desperate and dangerous and then he counteracted the hope that brought to Ty with the hinges (which I thought worked fabulously). So you had a double squeeze of pressure being exerted. That's definitely a technique to borrow if you can.
Armored truck guards Mike (Matt Dillon), Baines (Laurence Fishburne) and Quinn (Jean Reno) turn against one another after their plan to steal $10 million from their own company goes seriously haywire. A witness throws a wrench into their seemingly flawless strategy, so each man scrambles to save his own skin -- whatever the cost to the other conspirators. Nimród Antal directs and Columbus Short co-stars.
That’s a different spin on the script as other reviewers noted.
CHARACTERS – Quickly drawn but nicely done. I barely felt concern for Jimmy when he is used as leverage on Ty. Perhaps, one more scene with Jimmy would have sold me on his genuine value to Ty. I read above that the movie attempted to do this. Good call even if it didn’t work out on the screen.
Gary
Just for reference: It's actually $42M in the film.
Your point about Jimmy is a good one. What needed to be seen I think was not so much more of him, but a good side to him. He is presented as a problem for Ty, so we don't have much sympathy. You need to see more of his nature to connect with him.
So, a good, well-written script. My genre? No. Someone mentioned somewhere that this was similar to 'Trespass', which I agree with. Zemeckis wrote that and it feels like a blueprint for this.
One thing that stood out was the style of the writing. Scant regard for 'unfilmables' and inclusion of 'us', for example. A while ago I was deeply influenced by these crazy little rules dictating such tactics disrupted the read, or that you should only write what can be shown; and while that is much discussed territory here, I thought it worthy of a mention, rather than a discussion sidetrack. To me, that has always inhibited the natural storytelling process and stunts natural writing, IMO.
Anyway, back to the script. I see that the lack of GPS was a problem for many. I have mixed feelings about that. It's not necessarily the current day, we just assume it is. Maybe GPS is pending a fit 'cos it's a new technology. There is no elaboration on it, and while it's an issue, I don't think it's a breaker.
A bigger problem was the motivation for why these characters did what they did. Cochrane and Baines were particuarly motivated to do anything for this money. The obvious conclusion would be that they're fed up with working for so little, yet being responsible for so much, and this is touched upon in dialogue. However, it's really paying lip service. We need to see something to that end. We need to see the desperation that has, presumably, led normal, working guys into such desperate measures - I don't think we should have to make the leap with one or two lines about "$10 an hour". Also, Ty appears - down to the letter's contents - to have been in and out with the robbery. The letter suggests he was going to expose the whole thing should he not return by 10. So, he was suspicious, then why go? The logic felt off.
Stevie, I think it was, touched on why would these guys risk everything? The script left that glaring problem - we needed extra motivation and that is where the director must've tried to inject some kind of theme. Yet to see the film, but it would appear he took the wrong route. Focusing on the injustice of the current economic problems provided something most would gorge on, yet that seemed lacking in the script.
The central question this type of film, to me, should be: Would you do it? So, the opening should provide some compelling motivation for us to side with the decision to go ahead. Incorporating more of the characters' motivations versus the risk would've helped achieve that. Wasted scenes like the playing a trick on Ty can be lost. Then, it's a case of exploring the greed which permeated the decision to off Ty, and to use him as a fall guy. That serves as a deep metaphor for any number of contemporary examples of greed.
My main criticism of this script is that it's all surface, and while that can be enjoyable, most of the time it falls flat unless it's stylish surface, i.e. Tarantino. Dec alluded to the fairly flat dialogue, and that is one area where a Tarantino or Ritchie would've bypassed the script's lack of a message. In lieu of that style, we're a bit empty and this problem stops the script being excellent.
"Wasted scenes like the playing a trick on Ty can be lost".
In the film they considerably expand on that scene. They stage a full on hijacking of the van, by cutting the fuel lines so the van stalls, then balaclava'd figures fix a bomb to the back window. Ty is scared to death shouting about the bomb. It goes off destroying the window, but it's only a few harmless bangers.
This is how ridiculous the film version is. How did they get the truck back to the company in that state? How many questions would that raise? How come fireworks can blow through a bullet proof glass window?
Cochrane then tells Ty that it was a "test run" for the real thing, not just a joke, which is even sillier because it's not the plan at all. Their only plan is to drive to a warehouse....
The film version just starts to compound errors and absurdities on top of one another.
As for the criticism that it's all surface, I both agree and disagree. I can see where you are coming from, at the same time, I don't think it really needs any more than there is. The old "Some things in life are more important than money" was a strong enough theme for this type of thing and is particularly pertinent now.
Decadence, the above post is so right. I just realised that.
I thought this script was very slick.
The only thing which annoyed me was when there was a space between the line of action and the character name. Example:
" Ty
jumps from the roof as
Baines
sprints towards the whatever.
"
I would have liked it to be all on the same line.
For those that haven't seen the film the girlfriend was cut out of it, and the emotional connection was with the brother. I thought this was a good move, as it wasn't using such a bit stereotype.
I have more to say about this script obviously, but dunno where to begin. It was a fast read and a cool script. Should it have sold for 400 grand? Fuck no, but what can ya do?!
I thought this script was good, not great. But from what I'm reading it sounds like the finished product was worse. Haven't seen the movie and I don't plan to, not only b/c of this, but also b/c action isn't really my thing. The reason I read it was to see what the writer did differently to make himself stand out -- apparently he didn't even need to do that as he was already well-represented.
Technically speaking, the script was very well-written. As was mentioned, all the elements of a professional script are there, and the formatting looked spot-on, other than the minor details Tommyp pointed out. Grademan mentioned some descriptions he didn't like -- I was okay with most of them, and didn't feel that they were overdone. My question is, could a real unknown, without representation, get away with them?
I think the dialogue was simple, but effective. Character development could have been better, and the girlfriend really wasn't necessary.
Ultimately, if I had to define the story's appeal to a studio, it would be this:
-- Simple, well-written, and easy to make. If marketed properly, could have hauled in a huge profit.
-- Story flowed very well. Easy to follow, but not necessarily predictable. Basic? Sure. Overdone? maybe. But that hasn't stopped Hollywood before.
-- The message. Though we're not certain it's present day, most are aware of the struggling economy, especially in Detroit. The timing was perfect for something like this, giving the characters ample motivation and the audience a conflict they can easily understand, if not relate to. (and of course, who doesn't love a happy ending? )
It's very interesting reading the scripts as well as watching the film. You can get such totally different experiences. I was all ready to tear the script apart once I'd seen the film, then totally changed my mind when I read it.
Most scripts I read and later watch the movie, I'm 99% sure the script was better than the film. Just like the books so many films are based on are always better than the movie.
Too bad like you say that they changed the whole feel of the script.
I can live with the Iraqi vet thing, but Cochrane being his God father seems really bizarre.
-- The message. Though we're not certain it's present day, most are aware of the struggling economy, especially in Detroit. The timing was perfect for something like this, giving the characters ample motivation and the audience a conflict they can easily understand, if not relate to. (and of course, who doesn't love a happy ending? )
Happy endings seems to be something Hollywood demand for the American audience.
About the timing of this film and the economy. We did a SC last year (I think) where we read "I want to fuck your sister". I said at that time that I couldn't see that film ever making it to the theaters because of the economy. It was about, young Wall Street raiders and who wants to sit and watch a film like that in these times? If anything, I think people are really pissed at Wall Street. Having said that, I think that you can write a good script, but you can be unlucky by unforseen events that prevents your script from being sold.
I admit to not having read the script until just now. To be honest, my biggest problem with it is the "twist" where Cochrane reveals that he's going to kill Ty as part of the plan. Granted, that sets the whole second act into motion, but that also throws the biggest wrench into their "perfect plan." I mean, a crazy amount of holes can be punched in such a plan. If they are robbed, then they can call it in or whatever, but if someone is shot, they would have to stay put wherever it occurred. I doubt a rational person (since they would have to pretend to be so for the sake of the plan) would go "well, he's dead, I guess we should just load him up and go." I mean, they could have just shot him in the vest and that would have been enough. That is actually my biggest complaint is that the big event is too contrived for my taste.
Everything else (accepting that element) is all right. The GPS bit talked about was no big issue for me. Is it logical for them to have done it sooner? Sure, but they also explain that it's in the plans. It's just like any company to delay upgrades for cost.
The letter is a tad on the weird side though. His brother hates him and yet, he trusts his brother enough to write him a letter of that magnitude. Really? Jimmy had the reaction anyone would expect. He threw it away.
While the other guys in the robbery had little to no development, in a story like this, there's not much to develop. I'm sure they all could have had suitable sob stories or they could just be greedy. Greed is the primary motivation for any of them, or shooting Ty would not have been in the plans. Money makes people do really, really stupid things. I show up to work at 4:30am every day for money. I blow off perfectly good writing time to try and fix other people's problem. I put myself at the mercy of someone else's dream instead of chasing my own. All for money. How stupid is that?
When it comes to motivation, all you have to do is dangle a big enough carrot and people buy it. So, really, the fact that they all consented to a robbery speaks volumes of their character and desperation. The $10 an hour bit only solidifies how much they need it, since $10 an hour isn't as much as it used to be.
And I actually prefer a good happy ending in a script like this. It's like the satisfying stop at the end of a roller coaster ride. Down endings are only ok when there is prime justification and setup for it. A down ending here would not have worked because it would have come out of no where.
Such are my thoughts.
So no one has really hit on their plan so far. No one else took an issue with the whole plan revealed of having a man down, even though he would have been shot no where near wherever they would have claimed the robbery occurred? Even though it took a perfectly simple and workable plan and made it complex and stupid? It's a topic....
I don't have much to add to what people have already said. The script would've been appealing to producers because it presents as a relatively easy shoot, due to it having a handful of locations and it has the type of action that usually appeals to the popcorn eaters.
The action was pretty good but it really wasn't anything we haven't seen before. The characters were also paper thin and the dialogue was dull.. The only character I found kinda of interesting was Baines, because he went postal. But that was only superficial action. His personality, like every other character, wasn't very engaging. I also thought the build up to getting the protag (forgotten his name already) was really very weak. He joined in the group's plan with very little prompting, and I didn't buy it. They'd already tested him out with one prank; surely he would've thought that their crazy heist plan was just another test. Worse still his motivation for doing the job, while somewhat plausible, was boring. His power was cut off and he was struggling for a quid. This is show business, baby, I need the stakes to be a little higher. Also the “no one gets hurt” lines were painfully cheesy. As soon as they said them you just knew a shit load of people were going to get hurt. It was just a lazy and transparent attempt to make the protagonist look like a nice guy. So off the back of this I'd be telling the writer the action was entertaining and suspenseful enough. But the characters need a few more layers and the protag needs greater and more interesting motivation to participate in the heist.
Actually, I thought Ty's motivation was enough. I've been there. And seeing that much money flow past me in a day would piss me off, and I'd want a piece of it. When your income scrapes the bottom of the barrel, and you want to provide for your family, there is very little you won't do. Hence when this "opportunity" arose, I had very little doubt to his motivation.
Now, this is not to say it couldn't have been better. Frankly, they're irresponsible with money. If the power was out, I would not have gone out for dinner (Chinese take out though it may be). I would have made mac and cheese or something at home (provided their stove is gas). They probably spent five to ten bucks on the Chinese where mac and cheese is a cool 50 cents if you have the milk and butter on hand. Well, my power would not have been out to begin with because working two jobs provides ample funds to pay rent on an apartment and your utilities. Add to that the girlfriend also had a job. That makes three incomes. Suddenly, my sympathy for their situation decreases. Better would have been he loses his second job, she lost hers due to some illness (pregnancy would been even better), and they're strapped due to hospital bills. That's motivation. Two people with three incomes can live like kings if they spend wisely.
Now that you mention it, it does seem a bit silly. Particularly the fact that it's not near the scene of the robbery.
I can't remember what the specifics of the plan were, were they supposed to have been forced to go to the warehouse by the hijackers?
If so, it makes a bit more sense becasue if they could have been made to head to the warehouse in the firstplace, the execution of one of them as a sign they were serrious would make sense.
Hey guys, I just remembered another point, and it ties in well with what you are all talking about.
I like like the killing of the homeless man in the film instead of the plan of killing Ty (they are the turning point, right?) because there is more emotion there.
The audience can connect with the position Ty is in.
'Oh God, he just killed a guy, but all those millions, hmmm.'
I also thought the film version was more natural. Yes, the second the plan was revealed that they were going to kill Ty would look good on the trailer, but the overall feel and emotion in the film would lack.
Talking of trailers, i've read it's very important when writing to keep the trailer in mind, and this script there were lot's of "trailer moments", therefore marketable.
COCHRANE Remember, stick to the story. We stopped because a broken down car was blocking the road, but it was an ambush. Three masked guys with guns got the jump on us and jacked the money.
Yeah, that's the plan. They can't have been taken to the warehouse because they're hiding the money there. Execution style in the warehouse would have been a perfect reason to be there, but they would still need to hide the money somewhere. However, that plan would backfire since warehouses generally have smooth floors, so there would have been evidence of tire tracks of the thieves. No tracks means suspicion is thrown back on them. Wouldn't have worked.
And I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment too much on it, but the killing of a random person never has much in the way of emotional impact. Now, killing the random guy would show the character of the killer, and might help to show Ty's position, but...well, not knowing the reason the homeless guy was killed, I couldn't say how it fit, I guess.
Really, if you have to plug trailer moments into your script, you have to wonder how visual a story it is...
George, what I meant of the killing of a random guy is that it put the pressure on Ty on whether he wanted to go along with the plan or not (there wasn't the letter in the film). By putting the gun to his head, he literally didn't have a choice. In the script, it could have gone either way.
I think if you see the film you will see what I'm talking about a bit more.
I actually don't understand your last comment. You are saying that you shouldn't need to plug trailer moments right? A good trailer has to be made out of it though, to sell the film, so there would have to be trailer moments in the script.
So I've read it, and it's a good script. It's well-written, enjoyable, and it's one helluva fast read. The premise is simple but solid. The action zips along well enough, although I do feel it stumbled in Act Three - the chase to the hospital smacked of 'wanting to have a car chase', and the ending felt like someone had slapped a sticky sweet onto the last page. There were some good characters - Cochrane and Baines in particular. It was a pretty visual script, and always easy to follow.
BUT...I can't get over the feeling, "Is that it?" Brian says that Simpson (the writer) had an agent and manager when he was shopping the script around, but that contradicts other things I've read, such as interviews with Simpson himself (EDIT: my mistake - turns out he had a manager). Don't get me wrong - this was a perfectly decent, very filmable script. But it didn't blow my socks off by any means. It did what it did well enough, but it's not particularly memorable and probably won't stay with you. It's good, but doesn't seem 'stand-out' to me. I'm convinced that with enough outlining, any one of us here could write this.
So how come it was picked up and turned into a film? A big, Hollywood studio film with stars like Matt Dillon and Lawrence Fishbourne? I know it's simple, an appealling genre, and easy to film. I think Dec said that there was no reason NOT to film it. But that's true of thousands of scripts, surely? This wasn't exactly a no-risks, micro-budget long shot; it sounds like they spent decent money on this production, so they must have considered it worth the investment. Is the conclusion we draw that it really is a lottery, that if you write a decent script (and I do think that's all this is, not really anything jaw-dropping) then you're in with as good a shot as anybody?
Or is there more to it that? What did Simpson do that we don't?
So I've read it, and it's a good script. It's well-written, enjoyable, and it's one helluva fast read. The premise is simple but solid. The action zips along well enough, although I do feel it stumbled in Act Three - the chase to the hospital smacked of 'wanting to have a car chase', and the ending felt like someone had slapped a sticky sweet onto the last page. There were some good characters - Cochrane and Baines in particular. It was a pretty visual script, and always easy to follow.
BUT...I can't get over the feeling, "Is that it?" Brian says that Simpson (the writer) had an agent and manager when he was shopping the script around, but that contradicts other things I've read, such as interviews with Simpson himself. Don't get me wrong - this was a perfectly decent, very filmable script. But it didn't blow my socks off by any means. It did what it did well enough, but it's not particularly memorable and probably won't stay with you. It's good, but doesn't seem 'stand-out' to me. I'm convinced that with enough outlining, any one of us here could write this.
So how come it was picked up and turned into a film? A big, Hollywood studio film with stars like Matt Dillon and Lawrence Fishbourne? I know it's simple, an appealling genre, and easy to film. I think Dec said that there was no reason NOT to film it. But that's true of thousands of scripts, surely? This wasn't exactly a no-risks, micro-budget long shot; it sounds like they spent decent money on this production, so they must have considered it worth the investment. Is the conclusion we draw that it really is a lottery, that if you write a decent script (and I do think that's all this is, not really anything jaw-dropping) then you're in with as good a shot as anybody?
Or is there more to it that? What did Simpson do that we don't?
I agree with you, however no-one on here DID write it...that's the crux of the matter. There are writers on here that are far more sophisticated in some aspects of their writing than Simpson, but I will be honest and say that I haven't come across that many features on here that I think would be a sure bet in terms of fitting in with a demographic.
As for the second point: I'm not saying that it was just so easy to make, they may as well. It was a good script AND easy to make. It just minimises the reasons to turn you down. You can write a great script, but if it's niche material, the onus is on saying no. If it is hard to market, genre defying etc you build up possible reasons to turn it down. This script has everything on paper that it needs: Good hook (lots of money), heist, genre, easily understood, action-packed, fast paced, few locations.
The only reason to turn it down would be because you felt the script itself was lacking and that's not really the case.
On paper this was a film that you would expect to recoup on quite easily. It turns out they dropped a ball in Prodution, making the film worse than the script and also in terms of marketing (aiming it, apparently, just at the black demographic), but on paper, this looks a fairly safe-bet as these things go.
I don't personally believe that scripts have to be all that great to sell...most films are pretty mediocre in terms of story. The marketing hook is more important in a lot of cases. (Not to mention the actual marketing of the script itself) That's somewhere a lot of the pre-professional scripts fall down in my opinion.
Right, so I've read the interview, and feel more informed now. I'm officially calling this 'Deconstructing the Fairytale'. Below is my understanding of what unfolded - please correct me if I'm wrong.
The key to Simpson's success appears to be the Nichol Fellowships competition. In 2003 he reached the quarter-finals with 'Armored' and another script, 'Undertow' (can't find any reference to what that's about/like online). In his own words, this placing led to two producers searching him out - these are the guys that took 'Armored' to studios. Luckily for Simpson, just as interest in 'Armored' was beginning to build it reached the Final Round of the 2006 Nichol Fellowships. That, it seems, sealed the deal.
This raises two questions:
1) Why was 'Armored' deemed good enough to reach the 2006 final?
2) Is the Nichol Fellowship a valuable route for us as aspiring screenwriters to pursue?
Right, so I've read the interview, and feel more informed now. I'm officially calling this 'Deconstructing the Fairytale'. Below is my understanding of what unfolded - please correct me if I'm wrong.
The key to Simpson's success appears to be the Nichol Fellowships competition. In 2003 he reached the quarter-finals with 'Armored' and another script, 'Undertow' (can't find any reference to what that's about/like online). In his own words, this placing led to two producers searching him out - these are the guys that took 'Armored' to studios. Luckily for Simpson, just as interest in 'Armored' was beginning to build it reached the Final Round of the 2006 Nichol Fellowships. That, it seems, sealed the deal.
This raises two questions:
1) Why was 'Armored' deemed good enough to reach the 2006 final?
2) Is the Nichol Fellowship a valuable route for us as aspiring screenwriters to pursue?
1) Other than what we've said in this thread, it's impossible to answer. Bear in mind 1. It's subjective, if the judges like it, it's in. 2. It's relative. It just has to be considered better than the others presented that yeat, there's no objective level it has to reach.
By putting the gun to his head, he literally didn't have a choice. In the script, it could have gone either way.
But giving him a choice is better because he elects to do the wrong thing. Sometimes it's better for the character to be thrust into something, but for a crime, having him make the choice says something about his character.
I actually don't understand your last comment. You are saying that you shouldn't need to plug trailer moments right? A good trailer has to be made out of it though, to sell the film, so there would have to be trailer moments in the script.
Of course you have to have good moments in the script for the trailer. I'm just saying that if you have to go back through your script and insert moments that would work well in a trailer after you've completed it, does that not reflect on the possibly less visual nature of your original writing? It might not, of course, but I would think a good script should have these moments obvious from the get go.
Well, I just read the script and I must say I enjoyed it a lot and it was indeed a fast-read. But then I read all the posts in the forum and I must say it really opened my eyes in a lot of matters (some of them bothered me in some level while reading, but I didn't care at the time): The way everybody trust Ty so easily, the weirdness or simpleness of the plan, the three-job Chinese-food thing George said, etc... It all adds up to make the feel of the story less memorable.
It's true the script is the typical forgettable blockbuster, but I wonder... would I have done it better? When you are writing a script, you're looking at the big picture, you have tons of things to care about (characters, dialogue, back stories, pacing... a reeeeally long etcetera), and on top of it, you try to make the story very solid. But there are plot holes in almost every movie made and I guess that'll happen to us too. That's what this forum is about, share your works and learn from your colleagues.
I haven't been able to write a long movie script myself because of the time and energy that it involves (no one pays for a spec script, unless you are somebody)... As Mr.X said: "The story's simplicity can be deceiving; easy reading is damn hard writing as the saying goes", and that's a merit.
Ohh, and another thing: I can understand why the production company decided to make changes (this same debate about it's weaknesses must have been happened behind closed doors two years ago), but some the changes were good and some of them, bad.
At the end, it turns out to be the same, isn't it?... "Let's remove the girlfriend and make the antagonist his Godfather!". If we would have read the movie version, maybe we would have wanted a girlfriend...
Ohh, and another thing: I can understand why the production company decided to make changes (this same debate about it's weaknesses must have been happened behind closed doors two years ago), but some the changes were good and some of them, bad.
At the end, it turns out to be the same, isn't it?... "Let's remove the girlfriend and make the antagonist his Godfather!". If we would have read the movie version, maybe we would have wanted a girlfriend...
Yeah. I think the thing is that the characters in simple stories like this usually need to play some kind of intrinsic role. Would Die Hard have been as successful if McClanes wife wasn't inside the building? No, definitely not.
In the script the woman is just used as a motivational tool, he needs money to marry her and provide the right kind of life. She isn't intrinsic to the story. If she is going to be there she may as well be involved more or cut altogether.
You'd have two choices really. Keep the woman and have her used as the bait ala Jimmy (and cut Jimmy) or cut Dana and keep Jimmy, which is what they went for. Brother is a litte less predictable, at the same time it is a little less powerful.
What if the bad guys killed the girl and Ty still did the right thing? How would that have played out?
Or what if when they went to get Jimmy, Dana was there as well (she's popped back to get something, or finished work early) and they drag both of them back to the warehouse. Would that have ratcheted things up even further?
Or what if when they went to get Jimmy, Dana was there as well (she's popped back to get something, or finished work early) and they drag both of them back to the warehouse. Would that have ratcheted things up even further?
That’s what I thought was going to happen. Then it turned out Dana was really unnecessary. I wasn’t surprised by that. Most female characters in these types of movies are undeveloped. I wasn’t surprised to hear she was cut from the film altogether.
Personally, I didn’t buy the relationship between Ty and Jimmy. If the author has a brother in real life, it doesn’t show in the story. Jimmy is such a one dimensional and generic younger brother character, he felt like cardboard to me.
I actually liked Dana at first. Her first scene was good. Then she just sort of instantly turned into the stereotypical one dimensional nurturer female. Fair enough but she shone more as a character in her few short scenes than Jimmy did in all of his. That’s why I think they would have been better off to cut Jimmy and keep Dana. They would have had to change the beating scene though. Dana would never have been able to take the beating Baines is described as delivering to Jimmy. Still I would have preferred Dana over Jimmy as a character.
I felt the character of Baines was a thankless role for Laurence Fishburne. Fishburne is a terrific actor. He deserves better in my opinion than the mindless psychotic sidekick with no good lines. I hope his character was improved for the film. If not, that’s a shame in my opinion.
The only thing about this that makes me want to see the movie at all would be to see Matt Dillon as Cochrane.
I didn't buy the brother either. He was just an annoying little aside in the script, just another mouth to feed really.
They tried to expand on him in the film, but it didn't really work. They made him a grafitti artist (he paints the kitchen wall, much Tys displeasure) and have social services visitng him for skipping school.
Unfortunately, his character weakens the motivation for Ty to steal the money. He's just lazy and irresponsible, so it lessens our sympathy with Ty.
If Jimmy was more studious and worked harder at school...there's more motivation for us wanting Ty to support him. As it is he adds nothing but the bait plot-line to the script.
The thing you raise about Baines beating Dana...I'd have had that in if I was making it, definitely. That would have been very powerful.
Baines has more lines in the film, but they are all very weak. It plays more like a buddy film. It starts with the boys all together joking in the locker room and we see them in the bar. Baines essentially just ribs Ty (who is an Iraq vet) about being a soldier boy.
That's it really.
Major problem with the film is that it lessens Ty's role as the good guy and lessens the antagonists role as well. By giving them more screen time, it just makes us sympathise with them more. You want the guys to succeed with the heist and Ty becomes the annoying character who is messing it all up for the rest of them. Ty is Cochranes God son, so he spends a lot of the film trying to persuade him onside (the stitch up has gone).
It totally loses focus and the happy ending of the script, despite being the same in the film, suddenly plays completely differently. Ty has got all his friends killed on a point of principle (Baines shoots a homeless guy who sees what they are doing, Cochrane finishes him off when Ty is trying to tke him to a hospital). You do kind of feel that they had no choice though, as they were essentially all going to jail if they let him live.
The film is a shambles. It takes a simple story and tries to add layers, but it completely unhinges the story.
Something else I wanted to comment on was your point about the underdevelopmnt of women in these kind of films. I thik that is absolutely true and has been a consistent factor for a long time.
Funnily enough, some of the better action/thriller type films have highly developed women characters who are intrinsic to the plot: Aliens, Thelma and Louise, Bound, Haute Tension, Butterfly Kiss, Nikita...seems like when they bother to write them, it really works.
Women tend to be under-represented in screenwriting and even more so in directing...one of those things people try to combat but never seem to get anywhere with. That's definitey going to effect how many decent female characters you get...people tend to write characters like themselves, so more male writers, more male characters...
I once heard it said that men are more interested in objects and women in the realtionships between objects. So men are more likley to write stories (like Armored) about people trying to get something or do something, whilst women are less concerned with the actual action and more about how people behave.
Don't know how true that is. I do think a number of the genres that Hollywood loves so much seem very male orientated, action, horror etc
I remember discussing the three act structure as analagous to the male sexual experience as well in Uni: Opening=foreplay, Obstacle, overcome obstacle=Intercourse, Climax=climax, resolution=pillow talk.
The feminist lecturer wondered whether it was possible to write a film story in a feminine structure: opening=foreplay, climax, climax, climax, climax, resolution.
Something I've always wanted to try.
From my own experience, a large number of women seem to write more autobiographical stories concerning families and realtionships, so whilst you get interesting female characters in a lot of dramas, or romatic comedies...you don't get so many in the more male orintated genres.
Interesting Rick. I think you are right though....you usually are.
I agree that if it was Dana that was brought to the warehouse, it would have had a much bigger impact if he did beat her to a pulp.
From what I hear from you about the film, it seems like they really screwed up. I will watch it though because now I want to study it. See where they went wrong so to speak. The script definitely worked and it shouldn't have been that hard to turn into a good movie.
In regards to men writing male genres and mostly male characters, I feel sort of odd here because I often write in those male genres and usually write male characters whether it's young boys, middle aged or old men. When I write female characters they tend to do "male" things. Don't know what this says about me...
Interesting Rick. I think you are right though....you usually are.
I agree that if it was Dana that was brought to the warehouse, it would have had a much bigger impact if he did beat her to a pulp.
From what I hear from you about the film, it seems like they really screwed up. I will watch it though because now I want to study it. See where they went wrong so to speak. The script definitely worked and it shouldn't have been that hard to turn into a good movie.
In regards to men writing male genres and mostly male characters, I feel sort of odd here because I often write in those male genres and usually write male characters whether it's young boys, middle aged or old men. When I write female characters they tend to do "male" things. Don't know what this says about me...
Nothing to feel odd about, nothing is absolute..what I said was a generalisation.
One thing I would say is that women don't get that many roles to play outside of love interest and mothers....you might find you can attract a top quality actress with a part in a different genre because there aren't that many around.
Something to think about anyway...
Cameron seems to be good at writing strong parts for women. The Terminator and Aliens...It's interesting to imagine those films if the lead was male. Doesn't seem quite as powerful somehow does it?
I suppose in some ways it's logical that a main character in such a story would be female...a waitress versus an unstoppable killing machine, it's about as much of a contrast as you can get. Surprised it's not that common when you think about it.
The cliche hard man versus the enemy is intrinsicly less tense. The odds aren't that immense against them.
I must say, my own writing is weighted towards male characters, although the first feature I ever wrote had a female lead. I'm going to make a mental note to think about that in the future.
I imagine that would be because (and why) the male oriented genres are not really about character and thereby very character-thin. Anyway, most women aren't really dumb enough to get themselves into the kind of situations prevalent in the male-oriented genres. That would probably be a reason that the female leads in slashers tend to have fallen into the situations instead of having lead themselves into the proverbial fire.
Maybe that's sexist, but dealing with stereotypes of any kind is (blank)-ist.
I do know that most of my stories are male driven. My Fempiror one only has two female characters speak of out of a huge cast of them...and one of them was an afterthought to allow for a later story. Usually, any females I write are just the love interest of the lead...with the exception of my slasher one where the female was the lead, of course.
I once heard it said that men are more interested in objects and women in the realtionships between objects. So men are more likley to write stories (like Armored) about people trying to get something or do something, whilst women are less concerned with the actual action and more about how people behave.
I think that’s true but only in a proportional sense, not a literal one. I generally try to write stories I think will appeal to both men and women.
I write a lot of stuff that might be considered something males would like but I still put a focus on the relationships between the characters. With something like “Armored,” I would have considered the relationship between Ty and Jimmy pivotal to the story. I would have definitely focused on it although it wouldn’t have been the main drive of the story.
I write every main character with both a physical goal and an emotional need.
One thing I would say is that women don't get that many roles to play outside of love interest and mothers....you might find you can attract a top quality actress with a part in a different genre because there aren't that many around.
I’ve been trying this for years. I practically specialize in writing scripts with female main characters who are strong yet still feminine, in stories that appeal to both men and women. Doesn’t work that well -- haha. To get to the actresses, you still have to go through all the males in the business who groan at the idea of a script written by a woman.
I think assumptions about men and women are definitely part of the problem. For example; It’s automatically assumed guys hate rom-coms so they’re basically written for women and end up driving men crazy. It’s like a self fulfilling prophecy.
Same with action movies. There’s an assumption women can’t enjoy a movie that’s “too rough” so they’re geared exclusively for males, thus putting women off.
It doesn’t have to be that way and quite frankly I think it stems from ignorance. There are too many male writers who don’t know anything about women and it shows in their female characters. And vice versa. It works both ways. If writers would spend a little more time trying create more complex characters, and viewing the opposite sex as human rather than alien, then I think there is room for great movies that appeal to both genders.
Re: Dana being beaten, what I meant was that she wouldn’t survive the beating as described in the script. I was surprised that Jimmy survived it. It depends on whether she lives or dies. But yeah, Dana getting a severe beating would have definitely been more powerful.
It's funny how the discussion has turned to the representation of women in film, and the only female character in the script we're discussing got cut.
Has there ever been an all-female cast heist movie?
I bet we could have some fun with that....once the script club dies, we should do a script factory. With the knowledge of everyone on this thread we could put together a cracking script.
Funnily enough, Disney have announced one...just did a quick Google...
I remember a female heist movie I saw long time ago. They were all black. Can't remember the title right now, but I think I liked it.
And about Jimmy, I remember while reading the script that I felt I was supposed to be really worried about him when they were on their way to go get him, but I didn't really care so I guess that means that character didn't really work for me. Also agree with Breanne about Dana's initial scenes. I assumed she was going to be a pretty big character in this and I did like her. In other words, they should have kept her and ditched Jimmy altogether.
Pages: 
Author
Script Club XII: Armored
Logged
